Thursday, September 11, 2014

BREAKING: Obama's 'Coalition Of Partners' On ISIS Chrashes And Burns

President Obama's ridiculous speech last night on combating the Islamic State had these main components - making sure to mention that Islamic State was neither a state or Islamic, airstrikes on Iraq and Syria, reassuring his Leftist base that no U.S. ground troops would be participating, and this:

This is our strategy. And in each of these four parts of our strategy, America will be joined by a broad coalition of partners.

Apparently President Obama opened his mouth before actually taking roll call on those 'allies.'

The Brits, supposedly our closest strategic ally have already said they won't do any airstrikes in Iraq and have expanded that 'no thanks': to include Syria:

Britain’s foreign secretary says his country won’t participate in airstrikes on Syria, following an announcement from Washington that it would begin hitting targets inside the country.

Speaking Thursday after talks with his German counterpart Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Philip Hammond said Britain won’t be “revisiting” the issue after Parliament decided last year against participating in airstrikes.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told a news conference in Berlin that Germany has not been asked to take part in the air strikes and would not be participating. “To quite clear, we have not been asked to do so and neither will we do so,” Steinmeier said.

Turkey will refuse to allow a US-led coalition to attack jihadists in neighbouring Iraq and Syria from its air bases, nor will it take part in combat operations against militants, a government official told AFP Thursday.

"Turkey will not be involved in any armed operation but will entirely concentrate on humanitarian operations," the official said on condition of anonymity.

Turkey's non-participation is key, because it borders both Iraq and Syria and has a reasonably strong, U.S. equipped military.

The Turks are refusing to get involved because when Mosul fell to The Islamic State, so did the Turkish Consulate and 49 hostages...and also because they don't want to encourage the Kurds because of their own suppressed Kurdinh minority in Turkey. And because they have backed The Islamic State from the start against Assad. You'd think someone might have whispered this in the ear of our prevaricator-in-chief before he asked them to join up.

So who's left? The French? Possible, in a very limited way, but doubtful...remember all those French Muslim voters and the upcoming elections.Hollande and the socialists will need every vote they can get.

New Europe? The Poles, Baltic States, Georgia and Ukraine all contributed to Iraq and Afghanistan, but after the way the Obama Administration has treated them and what with Putin on the prowl, faggeddabbouddit.

There's the Sunni Arab states, and Secretary of State Kerry is headed there as I write this. The Saudis and the GCC may help,but again in a limited way and certainly not with boots on the ground. Aside from the fact that one of them Qatar is actually funding the Islamic State and has been for some time, there's also the problem of Iran, the president's new friend. The Saudis and the Emirates are smart enough to know even if Obama and Kerry aren't that if ISIS is taken off the board, there's no obstacle to Iran achieving its long time goal of a Shi'ite nuclear armed bloc.

They've long since stop trusting Obama's assurances on the matter. It remains to be seen what Kerry can promise them to get them fully involved. Certainly it won't be with boots on the ground.

The same applies to the Egyptians who are not exactly Obama fans at this point and have their own jihadis to deal with at home and next door in Libya thanks to this president. They won't be fighting in Iraq and Syria in any large way, and anything they do it will be for a steep price demanded of Obama.

That leaves Iran, Iran's Shi'ite militias, Hezbollah, the Iraqi army none of whom have been able to stop Islamic State's fighters thus far. And the Kurds, who don't trust Obama and will concentrate on defending their own territory. Oh, and about1,700 US 'advisers' (the president glossed over those in his speech) who are basically in the same position our advisers in Vietnam were circa 1962.

Islamic State isn't going to be defeated by air strikes, and those are the boots on the ground. And is the U.S. going to act as the Shi'ite air force now, taking sides in the sectarian conflict in the region? I do seem to remember a certain freshman senator from Illinois and his Democrat buddies criticizing President Bush for getting us involved in a sectarian civil war in Iraq,don't you?

I hope I'm wrong, but just watch as he sends more 'advisers' in to cover his chest thumping rhetoric.

President Obama has no real strategy, except to make it look like he's doing something and improve his terrible poll numbers before the election to try and hold the senate. As always, everything is about politics with this president - not the country.

oh puhleeeze anon, you forgot to say it's bush's fault.it's bush's fault.it's cheney's fault, a hundred times.Not to be that guy who has to point out irony to the oblivious, but ff is not an elected official of the gov't. he is a private citizen. he can say any dmn thing he wants.and just for grins, your comment puts politics ahead of country. hll, every dmn comment you make does that.....here's a question for you, mr. oblivious, what did you, yes, i said you, do with that voice recorder and the flight recorder off MH17. you guys have had that for over two months and no disclosure of details......why is that mr. oblivious?it's bush's fault.it's cheney's fault.i would say in closing that i am sure ff doesn't want isis to be victorious, the reason being hussein, and yourself, identify more with them than you two do with people who used to be called americans. it is obvious then, that you both are looking for an isis win.

dmn.i left out the paragraph wanting anon to provide an example from the post/essay wherein ff does put politics ahead of country.he/she wouldn't do it, so it doesn't even matter that i left it out.why did i leave that paragraph out?it's bush's fault.it's cheney's fault.hey anon, how does it feel defending bush's fourth term in office?

Obama and his Democrat pals did their very best from day one to sabotage the Iraq war effort, simply because of politics.

In former Sec Def Robert Gates' memoirs he writes about how angry he was at Reid , Pelosi, Obama, Hillary, Biden and the rest of them playing politics with legislation that actually cost lives in Iraq and AfPak.

He also rights how he had to bite his lip to keep from screaming at Hillary, Obama and Biden when he stayed on as Obama's Sec Def that that all of that crap was 'just politics,hah hah, nothing to be taken seriously.'

The dems nurtured their whole lefty base like anon to be rabidly anti-war and especially against war in Iraq.Remember how crazy MoveOn and the rest of them were?

Now, their boyfriend is getting us into a half-assed, Vietnam-style war complete with US advisers on the ground.

And they are faced with the dilemma of either admitting how full of it they were before simply because it was Bush as C-in-C as they now get behind Obama's new illegal war or they have to break with the Bamster to hold true to their so-called principles.

I'm already watching black apologists for Obama who were rabidly anti-Bush and anti-Iraq war like columnists Colbert King and Ruth Marcus turn 'hawk', all of a sudden.

The only thing that stops it from being hilarious is all the people whom have died and the ones yet to die because of this clueless, dysfunctional president.